Linda Larocque v. The Kroger Co., et al.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 8 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE — 9 — 10 LINDA LAROCQUE, CASE NO. C25-5380 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON FEES 12 v. 13 THE KROGER CO., et al., 14 Defendants. — 15 — 16 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 29), including Plaintiff’s 17 request for an award of fees. (Order on MTC (Dkt. No. 35).) Plaintiff has now provided a 18 declaration from counsel outlining his request for fees. (Declaration of Robert Wilke (Dkt. No. 19 36).) The Court issues this Order on the request for fees having reviewed the declaration and all 20 supporting materials. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff’s Counsel, Robert Wilke, has filed the sole declaration in support of the request 23 for fees. Wilke graduated from Seattle University School of Law in 2015, the same year he — 24 — 1 became a barred attorney, and has since become a partner at Gordon Thomas Honeywell. (Wilke 2 Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13.) He seeks approval of $700/hour rate, which he claims “is reasonable for an 3 attorney with [his] experience and reputation and is consistent with the prevailing market rates 4 for attorneys of comparable levels of expertise and reputation at Seattle area law firms that 5 practice complex litigation.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Wilke claims his practice is “primarily contingency 6 based,” and thus has supplied a contingency rate, not a rate that any client has paid. (Id.) Wilke 7 provides two documents to support his request: (1) a 2015 survey published in the National Law 8 Journal concerning nation-wide billing rates; and (2) an order granting fees in a January 2025 9 Pierce County Superior Court matter that did not involve him or his firm. (Id. Exs. 2 & 3.) Wilke 10 also asks the Court to approve a $700/hour rate for his partner, Ian Leifer, who is a 2020 11 graduate of the Seattle University School of Law. (Id. ¶¶ 14-18.) Wilke bases Leifer’s requested 12 rate using the same supporting information. Lastly, Wilke seeks approval of a $165/hour rate for 13 a paralegal, Shane Ishii-Huffer. (Id. ¶ 19.) Together, the two attorneys and paralegal billed 23 14 hours to the Motion to Compel, and seek a total of $15,672.00 in fees. (Id. Ex. 4.) 15 ANALYSIS 16 A. Legal Standard 17 “The essential goal in shifting fees . . . is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing 18 perfection.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). To determine the fee award, the Court begins 19 by calculating a lodestar “by taking the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation 20 and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate.” Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 , 1119 21 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). “Where a plaintiff has 22 obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.” Hensley, 461 — 23 — — 24 — 1 U.S. at 435. And “[i]n these circumstances the fee award should not be reduced simply because 2 the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit.” Id. 3 The Court determines the hourly rate by considering the “evidence produced by the 4 parties, including fee rates of other attorneys in similar practices, awards in comparable cases, 5 counsel’s experience and reputation level, and the market rates, as well as two additional Kerr 6 factors: the novelty/difficulty of the issues and the preclusion of other work.” Dang v. Cross, 422 7 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining hourly rates, the Court must look to the “prevailing 8 market rates in the relevant community.” Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858 , 868 (9th 9 Cir.2003). These are typical the rates for the forum district. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 10 1392, 1405 (9th Cir.1992). The Court may also rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with 11 the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. Ingram v. Oroudjiam, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th 12 Cir. 2011). 13 In deciding the number of hours “reasonably expended,” the Court considers whether the 14 time on matter that was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 15 434. The requesting attorney must provide reasonable documentation of the work performed to 16 enable this determination. Id. at 433 . “Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the 17 district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Id. Additionally, hours that are block billed 18 “make[] it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular activities.” Welch 19 v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court may reduce hours that are 20 block billed, but it “should ‘explain how or why . . . the reduction . . . fairly balance[s]’ those 21 hours that were actually billed in block format.” Id. (quoting Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140 , 22 1146 (9th Cir. 2001)). — 23 — — 24 — 1 B. The Court’s Award 2 Having considered the materials provided, the Court finds that a reduced award from 3 what counsel has requested is appropriate. 4 First, the Court finds inadequate support for the hourly rates requested by Wilke, Leifer, 5 and Ishii-Huffer. The materials submitted omit: (1) the hourly rate Wilke or Leifer charges for 6 non-contingency work; (2) any court approval of either attorney’s hourly rate; (3) recent data on 7 hourly rates for the greater Seattle/Tacoma market; (4) a statement of support from any attorney 8 from the local area; or (5) any indication why Leifer’s rate should be the same as Wilke’s, 9 despite having half the experience. In addition, the Pierce County Order provides no support 10 because it does not concern the specific attorneys or the law firm. And the Order does not 11 indicate the relevant experience and education of counsel whose hourly rates were approved. The 12 Court also finds inadequate support for the requested $165/hour rate for Ishii-Huffer. Wilke has 13 provided no information about the paralegal’s background, skill, or experience, or any prior court 14 order finding the requested rate appropriate. 15 The Court also finds the requested rates to be out of line with rates it has approved in 16 other cases involving contingent work. For example, the undersigned approved a $525/hour rate 17 for counsel in an employment discrimination case where counsel had 22 years of experience, 18 obtained a $6.8 million verdict for her client, regularly billed clients at that rate, and provided 19 three declarations attesting to the reasonableness of the rate. See Goldstine v. Fedex Freight Inc., 20 C18-1164 MJP, Dkt. No. 410 at 4-5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2021). In that same case, the Court 21 approved $375/hour for counsel with eight years of experience, who provided no evidence what 22 clients regularly paid her and did not convince the Court that her skills were sufficiently 23 comparable to those closer to her requested $425/hour rate. Id. at 5-6. In another employment — 24 — 1 discrimination case, the Court approved a $375/hour rate for an attorney with seven years of 2 experience who assisted in the recovery of an $11 million verdict for his client. See Kingston v. 3 IBM, C19-1488 MJP, Dkt. No. 192 (W.D. Wash. June 29, 2021). In that same case, the Court 4 approved $525/hour for an attorney from the same firm with 15 years of experience who 5 regularly charged $725/hour nationally and showed excellent trial work, as well as $525/hour for 6 highly-skilled local counsel with nearly twenty years of experience. Id.; see id., Motion for 7 Attorneys’ Fees, Dkt. No. 146. Both attorneys provided supporting declarations from local 8 practitioners. As to paralegals, the Court has found a rate of $175/hour reasonable for a paralegal 9 with 40 years of experience in the local Seattle market. See Deane v. Pacific Financial Group 10 Inc., et al., C19-722 MJP, Dkt. No. 185 at 7 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2021). The Court has also 11 approved a rate of $175/hour for a paralegal who filed supporting information attesting to her 12 being “one of the most skilled and experienced paralegals with whom [the declarant has] ever 13 worked.” Gamble v. State Farm, C19-5956 MJP, Order on Post-Trial Motions, Dkt. No. 149 14 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2022). 15 Having considered the prior awards, the relative skill shown by counsel, their experience, 16 and the lack of adequate supporting materials, the Court finds an award of $400/hour for Wilke 17 and $300/hour for Leifer. This amount reflects the relative skill demonstrated, their experience, 18 and the results obtained. Additionally, the Court awards $125/hour for Ishii-Huffer, given the 19 lack of evidence as to his experience and the skill shown. This amount reflects the Court’s best 20 approximation of a reasonable rate. 21 Second, the Court also finds that a reduction in the hours billed is reasonable given the 22 straight-forward nature of the Motion to Compel. Counsel has identified over fourteen hours 23 spent drafting the Motion and nearly six hours spent drafting the Reply. (Dkt. No. 36-4.) The — 24 — 1 Motion and Reply involved a narrow factual record and straight-forward legal issues that did not 2 require so much time to be expended. Given the lack of complexity, the Court finds that the time 3 billed is excessive, and reduces it by 20%. 4 Applying these reductions, the Court AWARDS $6,864.00. 5 CONCLUSION 6 The Court finds that an award of $6,864.00 is appropriate given the information provided 7 by counsel, the experience and skill shown, and the lack of complexity in the briefing. The Court 8 notes that this Order does not necessarily constrain any future awards of fees, which may be 9 based on a different record and posture. 10 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 11 Dated October 14, 2025. A — 12 — 13 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 —